DOCSLIB.ORG

LAWSUITS AGAINST GUN MANUFACTURERS by Nobuko Nagata, Legislative Analyst

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
LAWSUITS AGAINST GUN MANUFACTURERS by Nobuko Nagata, Legislative Analyst STATE NOTES: Topics of Legislative Interest March/April 2000 LAWSUITS AGAINST GUN MANUFACTURERS By Nobuko Nagata, Legislative Analyst Background Under tort law, someone sustaining personal injury or damage to his or her property due to the proper use of an unsafe or defective product may seek compensation from the persons who designed, manufactured, sold, or furnished that product. Most product liability cases arise because a product does not function as intended, such as when brakes fail or toys contain harmful parts. In November 1998, the attorneys general of 46 states entered into a settlement with five tobacco companies promising up to $206 billion over the next 26 years in compensation for costs associated with smoking-related diseases. The tobacco cases were unusual, if not unique, because they involved liability for products that did function as intended, but with damaging outcomes. On a similar notion, some cities and counties recently have filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers to recover public costs associated with gun violence. In addition to product liability, these suits are based on theories of negligence, nuisance, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that in 1996, 34,000 people in the United States were killed by gunfire (including more than 14,300 homicides, 18,100 suicides, and more than 1,100 unintentional shooting deaths), making firearms second only to motor vehicles as the most frequent cause of injury-related deaths in the country. With the experience of the states’ multibillion dollar settlement with the tobacco companies in mind, the municipalities suing the gun manufacturers may believe that they do not actually have to win a lawsuit, but rather bring enough suits to induce the gun manufacturers to take responsibility for negotiation, reform, and control. Gun Lawsuits Filed On October 30, 1998, the City of New Orleans filed the first lawsuit on behalf of a city or other governmental unit against the firearms industry (including dealers, distributors, and manufacturers). Since then, approximately 30 cities and counties, including Alameda County (CA), Atlanta, Boston, Bridgeport (CT), Camden City (NJ), Camden County (NJ), Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Detroit, Gary (IN), Los Angeles (including Compton, West Hollywood, and Inglewood), Los Angeles County, Miami/Dade County, Newark (NJ), Philadelphia, St. Louis, San Francisco (including Berkeley, Sacramento, San Mateo County, Oakland, and East Palo Alto), Washington D.C., Wayne County (MI), and Wilmington (DE), have filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers seeking compensation for the public costs associated with gun violence. (Judges in Cincinnati, Bridgeport, and Miami-Dade County have dismissed the lawsuits brought by those governmental entities.) According to the lawsuits, the public costs associated with gun-related violence, unintentional shootings, and teen suicide include factors such as medical care, police investigation, emergency personnel, public health resources, courts, and prisons. According to an article in the Detroit Free Press (3-9-99), the Urban Institute found that rapes, robberies, assaults, and murders committed with guns in 1997 cost Detroit taxpayers an estimated $850 million. The Journal of the American Medical Association estimates that nationwide, the yearly financial costs of gun violence are $1.4 billion to $4 billion and another $19 billion in indirect costs, such as loss of productivity. Legal Theories Product Liability. New Orleans, Miami, and St. Louis are just a few of the cities that have filed a lawsuit focusing on the design of the firearms. The suits’ primary allegation is that the guns are unreasonably dangerous in design under relevant state laws. The lawsuits contend that the gun industry’s sale of guns fails to incorporate feasible safety devices into firearms to prevent their use by young children and other unauthorized users. The plaintiffs suggest that gun manufacturers should do more to ensure that the weapons cannot be misused by criminals or children, by including trigger locks and smart gun technologies that permit only the owner to fire STATE NOTES: Topics of Legislative Interest March/April 2000 them. Allegedly, safety devices would prevent thousands of unintentional shootings by children, adolescent suicides, intentional shootings by violent teenagers, and criminal violence with stolen guns. Just as car manufacturers have been held liable for failing to install seat belts and air bags, the lawsuits contend that gun manufacturers should be found liable for failing to install feasible safety devices to prevent unintentional or unauthorized firearm use and many serious injuries and deaths. In Hurst v Glock Inc., a New Jersey appellate court recently held that even though guns present “obvious” dangers, a gun that was used in an unintentional shooting was a defective product because it did not have a device that would prevent discharge when the ammunition magazine was removed (causing the inexperienced shooter to believe the gun was unloaded). Central to the court’s reasoning was the fact that the manufacturer had the opportunity to eliminate the danger, because the manufacturer could have added the safety device without diminishing the gun’s usefulness. According to an article in the U.S. News (6-22-98), there is available technology for some safety devices such as key-operated internal locks or loaded chamber indicators that show whether a gun is loaded through a color- coded display or a pop-up ring. Reportedly, even though gun manufacturers are aware that unintended users like children will gain access to their products, some have resisted calls to incorporate locks and other safety features that would “personalize” guns and prevent them from being used by children and other unauthorized persons. It could be argued, however, that personalizing guns would be inexpensive compared with the costs of liability that nonpersonalized guns could impose on a gun manufacturer. Therefore, the threat of liability against the gun manufacturers arguably could provide an incentive for them to incorporate available technology and design to make their products safer, and perhaps provide the most effective long-term approach to ending unintentional shooting injuries. Nuisance/Negligent Distribution and Marketing. Some cities, including Chicago, Detroit and Boston, have filed lawsuits alleging that the gun industry created a public nuisance through the prevalence of illegally possessed firearms. These suits also contend that gun manufacturers and distributors have negligently and knowingly contributed to the illegal gun market, which significantly interferes with the public health and safety of city residents. The lawsuits allege that gun manufacturers are responsible for flooding the gun market even though they are aware that many of the guns are diverted to criminal use. For example, some of the lawsuits charge that semiautomatic assault weapons like the DC9 have no legitimate sporting or self-defense purpose but are particularly well adapted to a military-style assault in which the object is to shoot as many people as possible in the shortest period of time. The lawsuits charge that because the manufacturers knew or should have known that these products have no legitimate public use and encourage harmful and deadly attacks, sales to the general public violate a duty of care and constitute actionable negligence. The suits contend that placing these assault weapons in the public marketplace is just as irresponsible as leaving a gun accessible to a child or illegally selling a gun. The lawsuits also claim that the gun industry ignores its responsibility to monitor and control the sales practices of gun distributors and dealers, who sell guns directly and indirectly into the illegal marketplace. For example, the City of Detroit and Wayne County sued gun manufacturers and local gun dealers on April 26, 1999, for more than $800 million for “willful blindness” in allowing guns to be sold to criminals, youths, or other irresponsible persons through straw purchases (gun sales in which a dealer knowingly sells a weapon to someone acting as a front-man for a felon or juvenile). According to an article in the Detroit Free Press (4-27-99), Wayne County officials say that from 1990 to 1998, 5,264 children under 16 years of age were charged with carrying a concealed weapon in Wayne County. According to the lawsuit filed by the City of Detroit, from 1992 through 1998, more than 1,550 youths under the age of 16 were shot in Detroit and more than 135 of these children were killed by gunfire. The suit claims that manufacturers knowingly and deliberately exploit, rely upon, and help maintain an active and profitable illegal gun market for felons, juveniles, and other dangerous individuals who could not purchase a gun legally. The lawsuit also asserts that the manufacturers and dealers are negligent in not preventing felons and juveniles from obtaining weapons. STATE NOTES: Topics of Legislative Interest March/April 2000 In Hamilton v Accu-Tek, a Brooklyn jury found 15 of the 25 gun manufacturers sued guilty of negligence in their practices of marketing and distributing guns by oversupplying states that have relatively weak gun laws, with the knowledge that excess guns will be sold illegally in states with stricter gun laws. The case included testimony on the underground illegal marketing of new guns via convenience trafficking, straw purchases, corrupt practices by Federal firearms licensees, and stolen guns. It was argued that the gun manufacturers neglected to exercise a nominal duty of care that would help ensure that their potentially dangerous products would not end up in the hands of someone whom the manufacturers knew would be likely to use the product in an unreasonable manner. Three of the companies, American Arms, Beretta USA, and Taurus International Manufacturing, were ordered to pay a total of $560,000 in damages to one of the seven plaintiffs. The jury’s verdict marks the first time the firearms industry has been found collectively liable for gun violence. Deceptive Marketing and Advertising.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Discriminatory History of Gun Control David Babat University of Rhode Island
    University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI Senior Honors Projects Honors Program at the University of Rhode Island 2009 The Discriminatory History of Gun Control David Babat University of Rhode Island Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog Part of the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Babat, David, "The Discriminatory History of Gun Control" (2009). Senior Honors Projects. Paper 140. http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/140http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/srhonorsprog/140 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at the University of Rhode Island at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Honors Projects by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. David Babat [email protected] The Discriminatory History of Gun Control Introduction Gun control in the United States is based on a long history of discrimination which continues to this day. While blacks were the first targets of gun control measures, different racial and ethnic minorities have been targeted over time, and today the poor now face economic discrimination in many gun control laws. Gun control may be portrayed as a measure to reduce crime,1 but even in its earliest forms firearms regulation has been used as a means to control specific societal groups by keeping them from possessing weapons. The first selectively restrictive gun control legislation was enacted in the pre-Revolution South and primarily aimed at keeping free blacks from owning firearms and maintaining a white monopoly on power. Many different forms of gun control laws were implemented before and after the Revolution to keep firearms out of African-American hands.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Favors: a Sampling of Assault Weapon and Saturday Night Special Manufacturers That Would Be Protected
    Violence Policy Center 1 140 1gth Street, NW 202.822.8200 voice Suite 600 202.822.8205 fax rr Washington, DC 20036 www.vpc.org web "Small" Fauors A Sampling of Assault Weapon and Saturday Night Special Manufacturers That Would be Protected by the Product Liability Bill's "Small Business" Gap on Punitive Damages JUNE 19gB (Revised edition) The Violence Policy Center is a national non-profit educational organization that conducts research and public education on firearms violence and provides information and analysis to policymakers, journalists, grassroots advocates, and the general public. The Center examines the role of firearms in America, analyzes trends and patterns in firearms violence, and explores new ways to reduce firearm-related death and injury. For more information about this report, please contact Violence Policy Center Director of Federal Policy Kristen Rand at 202-822-8200 x102. Past studies released by the Violence Policy Center include: a Young Guns: How the Gun Lobby Nurtures America's Youth Gun Culture (March 1998) a Target America: Can the Flood of Foreign Assault Weapons Be Stopped? (March 1998) a Where Did You Get That Statistic?-A Firearms and Firearms Violence Bibliography and Research Guide for Advocates Working to Reduce Firearms Violence (February 1998) a License to Kill: Arrests lnvolving Texas Concealed Handgun License Holders (January 1998) a That Was Then, This is Now: The NRA and the Gun lndustry Talk About Assault Weaponslrom Both Sides of Their Mouths (December 1997) a Joe Camel With Feathers: How the
    [Show full text]
  • Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry: a Comparative Institutional Analysis Timothy D
    Georgia State University College of Law Reading Room Faculty Publications By Year Faculty Publications 2000 Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry: A Comparative Institutional Analysis Timothy D. Lytton Georgia State University College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/faculty_pub Part of the Second Amendment Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Timothy D. Lytton, Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry: A Comparative Institutional Analysis, 32 Conn. L. Rev. 1247 (2000). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Reading Room. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications By Year by an authorized administrator of Reading Room. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Lawsuits Against the Gun Industry: A Comparative Institutional Analysis TIMOTHY D. LYTrON" I. INTRODUCTION The current wave of lawsuits against the gun industry is part of a na- tionwide debate over how to reduce gun violence. Proponents of these lawsuits view litigation as a way to promote controversial proposals aimed at reducing gun violence, such as making manufacturers responsible for supervising retail gun sales and forcing them to install safety features that would render guns inoperable in the hands of unauthorized users.' To op- ponents, these proposals would unfairly burden gun manufacturers and could make it harder for law-abiding citizens to use guns for self-defense? Lawsuits against the gun industry are also part of another debate over the proper role of the tort system in the process of making public policy. Proponents of the suits argue that litigation is a legitimate way to regulate a powerful industry whose lobbying efforts have distorted the legislative process? Opponents counter that policymaking ought to be left to legisla- * Associate Professor,New York Law School (Albany Law School beginning July 1, 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Deadly Exceptions
    Violence Policy Center 1140 1 9th Street, NW 202.822.8200 voice Suite 600 202.822.8205 fax Washington, DC 20036 www.vpc.org web DEADLY EXCEPTIONS Gun Manufacturers That Would be Protected by the "Small Business" Cap on Punitive Damages February 2000 The Violence Policy Center is a national non-profit educationalorganization that conducts research and public education on firearms violence and provides information and analysis to policymakers, journalists, grassroots advocates, and the general public. The Center examines the role of firearms in America, analyzes trends and patterns in firearms violence, and explores new ways to reduce firearm-related death and injury. For more information about this report, please contact Violence Policy Center Director of Federal Policy Kristen Rand at 202-822-82O0 x102. This study was funded with the support of The Center on Crime, Communities & Culture of The Open Society lnstitute, The George Gund Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, and The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Past studies released by the Violence Policy Center include a Where Did You Get That Statistic? -A Bibliography and Resource Guide for Advocates Working to Reduce Gun Death and lnjury (January 20OO) a The Endgame: Any Settlement of Firearms Litigation Must Address Three Specific Areas of Gun lndustry Conduct and Include a Strict Enforcement Mechanism (December 1999) a Cashing in on the New Millennium: How the Firearms Industry Exploits Y2K Fears to Sell More Guns (December 1999) a Firearms Production in America-|999 Edition (November 1999) a When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of I gg7 Homicide Data (October 1999) a Gold Medal Gunslingers: Combat Shooting Targets the Olympic Games (July 1999) a One Shot, One Kill: Civilian Sales of Military Sniper Rifles (May 1999) a Start 'Em Young: Recruitment of Kids to the Gun Culture (April 1999) a License to Kiil, and Kidnap, and Rape, and Drive Drunk..
    [Show full text]
  • Section Four the Gun Industry's Response
    The Consumer Federation of America (CFA) is a nonprofit association of 300 consumer groups, representing more than 50 million Americans that was established in 1968 to advance the consumer interest through research, education, and advocacy. This report was authored by CFA Firearms Project Director Susan Peschin, firearms consumer safety and policy consultant Whit Collins, and former chief lobbyist for the gun industry Robert Ricker. CFA thanks the following individuals for their expertise, comments, and review: Josh Horwitz and Jill Ward of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence Richard Miller of Monsees, Miller, Mayer, Presley & Amick Chris Waldrop and Rachel Weintraub of Consumer Federation of America This report was generously funded by The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. - 2 - - 3 - Introduction Beyond the rhetorical debate between “gun control” and “gun rights” lies a longstanding and unaddressed problem: every year many gun owners and bystanders are killed or injured by defective or hazardously-designed guns. Consider the following real-life examples that graphically illustrate how guns with safety-related defects can kill or seriously injure gun owners and innocent bystanders: • A gun owner took his .22 Colt single-action revolver with him on a fishing trip. He was sitting on a rock when the gun fell from his holster, struck a rock, and discharged. The bullet lodged in his bladder, damaging vital nerves and rendering him impotent.1 • Mike Lewy was unloading his Remington Model 700 rifle in his basement apartment. As he moved the safety to the fire position in order to lift the bolt handle to eject a chambered cartridge, the gun discharged.
    [Show full text]
  • The Racist Origins of US Gun Control
    The Racist Origins of US Gun Control Laws Designed To Disarm Slaves, Freedmen, And African-Americans by Steve Ekwall OVERVIEW Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford to uphold slavery. The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect. After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral.
    [Show full text]
  • BRIEF of BLACK GUNS MATTER, a GIRL & a GUN WOMEN’S SHOOTING LEAGUE and ARMED EQUALITY AS AMICI CURIAE in SUPPORT of PETITIONERS ______Jonathan S
    No. 20-843 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ________________ NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ROBERT NASH, BRANDON KOCH, Petitioners, v. KEVIN P. BRUEN, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent of New York State Police, RICHARD J. MCNALLY, JR., in His Official Capacity as Justice of the New York Supreme Court, Third Judicial District, and Licensing Officer for Rensselaer County, Respondents. ________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit _________________________________________________ BRIEF OF BLACK GUNS MATTER, A GIRL & A GUN WOMEN’S SHOOTING LEAGUE AND ARMED EQUALITY AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS _________________________________________________ Jonathan S. Goldstein Counsel of Record Shawn M. Rodgers GOLDSTEIN LAW PARTNERS, LLC 11 Church Road Hatfield, PA 19440 610.949.0444 July 20, 2021 [email protected] LEGAL PRINTERS LLC ! Washington, DC ! 202-747-2400 ! legalprinters.com i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the State of New York’s denial of a petitioner’s application for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED ........................................ i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... iii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................. 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ....................................................... 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................. 5 I. SECTION 400.00(2)(F)
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Violence in America
    GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA GUN VIOLENCE IN AMERICA The Struggle for Control Alexander DeConde Northeastern University Press Boston Northeastern University Press Copyright 2001 by Alexander DeConde All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purposes of criticism and review, no part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission of the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data DeConde, Alexander Gun violence in America : the struggle for control / Alexander DeConde. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1–55553–486–4 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Gun control—United States. 2. Violent crimes—United States. 3. Firearms ownership—United States. 4. United States—Politics and government. I. Title. HV7436.D43 2001 363.3Ј3Ј0973—dc21 00–054821 Designed by Janis Owens Composed in Electra by Coghill Composition Company in Richmond, Virginia. Printed and bound by The Maple Press Company in York, Pennsylvania. The paper is Sebago Antique, an acid-free sheet. Manufactured in the United States of America 050403020154321 Contents Introduction 3 1 Origins and Precedents 7 2 The Colonial Record 17 3 To the Second Amendment 27 4 Militias, Duels, and Gun Keeping 39 5 A Gun Culture Emerges 53 6 Reconstruction, Cheap Guns, and the Wild West 71 7 The National Rifle Association 89 8 Urban Control Movements 105 9 Gun-Roaring Twenties 119 10 Direct Federal Controls 137 11 Guns Flourish, Opposition Rises 155 12 Control Act of 1968 171 13 Control Groups on the Rise 189 14 Gun Lobby Glory Years 203 15 A Wholly Owned NRA Subsidiary? 219 16 The Struggle Nationalized 235 17 The Brady Act 249 18 School Shootings and Gun Shows 265 19 Clinton v.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of Gun Control in America
    Portland State University PDXScholar Dissertations and Theses Dissertations and Theses 1976 The History of Gun Control in America Gary W. Hansen Portland State University Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/open_access_etds Part of the United States History Commons Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Hansen, Gary W., "The History of Gun Control in America" (1976). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 2281. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.2278 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. AN .ABSTR.::\CT 01" '.l'HE THESIS OF G<'H'Y W. Hansen for. the Mas tm: of Arts in HiBtory presented February 27, 1976. T:tt le: The History of Gun Control in America APPROVED BY MEMBERS OF THE THESIS CO.MHITTEE: ;,,.0 \ It Tltamas D. Mor·r is -------·-- This thesis examines the significant-------- guu control legi.s lat ion enacted in the Unii.:ed States, and the movement ~-to enact it. Tt is a content:ton---- of thi.s thesis that s<?~nt.1.- mcut favm: ing gun cont·!:.·ol com\f:.s esnenti.a lly from u~b.;;i.r~ ,_ ......_ which are most remote. frc:n Amer.tc..:i 's fronti.~!r her.i- tage, and thi;: common usag(" cf fire arms. Sent in~i:-:nt op;~·.;;.e inr.; gun control~ on thE: other hand, comeG pri.m.r-1ri ly frcfl1 th+~ ------- - West and South which are the areas nearent the frontier -,:.'-,,.,:...,;.-,~·- .
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control and the Color of Law
    Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality Volume 37 Issue 2 Article 5 June 2019 Gun Control and the Color of Law Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Law and Race Commons, and the Second Amendment Commons Follow this and additional works at: https://lawandinequality.org/ Recommended Citation Gun Control and the Color of Law, 37(2) LAW & INEQ. (2019). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol37/iss2/5 Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. 387 GUN CONTROL AND THE COLOR OF THE LAW Alicia L. Granse† There is a world of difference between thirty million unarmed, submissive Black people and thirty million Black people armed with freedom and defense guns and the strategic methods of liberation. – Huey P. Newton, June 20, 19671 Introduction: In August of 2017, then-St. Paul, Minnesota mayoral candidate Melvin Carter’s home was burglarized. A lockbox containing two firearms he had inherited from his father, a retired St. Paul police officer, was stolen.2 In response, the St. Paul Police Federation (a police union) wrote an open letter to the community asking the Black candidate a series of questions regarding his gun storage practices: where he had gotten the firearms, whether he had taken a gun safety course, and why he had waited to report the break-in.3 The letter was followed by a mailer from the Political Action Committee (PAC) Building a Better St. Paul—primarily funded by the St. Paul Police Federation—which claimed that “[o]ver 100 shots have been fired since August 15 when Melvin Carter’s guns went missing”—despite there being no allegation that Carter’s guns had, in fact, fired a single shot.4 The Carter campaign †.
    [Show full text]
  • Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: the Melting-Point Case-In-Point T
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 85 Article 7 Issue 3 Winter Winter 1995 Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: The Melting-Point Case-in-Point T. Markus Funk Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation T. Markus Funk, Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: The eM lting-Point Case-in-Point, 85 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 764 (1994-1995) This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/95/8503-0764 THE JOURNAL OF CuMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 85, No. 3 Copyright @ 1995 by Northwestern University, School of Law Pybntd in U.S.A. COMMENT GUN CONTROL AND ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION: THE MELTING- POINT CASE-IN-PONT T. MARKUS FUNK* "Setting a high minimum price for handguns would be an effec- tive means of reducing availability to precisely those groups that ac- count for the bulk of the violent crime problem."' I. INTRODUCTION In 1992, an estimated daily average of 36 people were murdered with handguns, 32 women were raped at gunpoint, 931 people were the victims of armed robberies, and 1557 people were assaulted with a gun in the United States.2 During the same year, handgun crimes accounted for approximately thirteen percent of all documented vio- lent crimes.3 Some states have attempted to bridle such illegal firearm violence with "melting-point laws." The Illinois, South Carolina, Ha- waii, and Minnesota legislatures have adopted rigid melting-point schemes designed to remove so-called Saturday Night Specials from 4 the market.
    [Show full text]
  • Inflation Drops to 7.5 Percent
    34 - THE HERALD. Wed,, April 22, 1981 Inflation drops to 7.5 percent WASHINGTON (UPI) - A The Labor Department, using un­ means goods costing consumers $100 nual rate, a sign of moderating price leveling off of gasoline and oil prices of $337 will climb in July to about ly adjusted. published seasonally adjusted index in 1967 now cost $^.10. pressure throughout the economy. $374.00. ’The 11.2 percent raise in With today’s announcement helped bring down the annual rate of figures, calculated the annual rate ’The Labor Department said gas­ In February energy prices inflation to 7.5 percent in March, the payments is less than the 14.3 per­ having a major bearing on Social of consumer price Inflation at 7.5 oline prices took a big jump in skyrocketed because of decontrol, cent raise made last year at this Security benefits. Treasury lowest level since last summer, the percent. That is the lowest since Ju­ March, but by much less than in accounting for 54.3 percent of the government reported today. time, but more than 1979’s increase Secretary Donald Regan said ly, when plummeting mortgage in­ January or February, as the effects entire CPI Increase. of 9.9 percent. Wednesday he opposes “the whole The-latest reading of the Con­ terest rates brought overall price in­ of President Reagan’s early decon­ Both transportation and housing sumer Price Index means Social The maximum Social Security theory of indexing” — tying wages flation down to a 1 percent annual trol of domestic oil prices began to indexes reflected the good news of benefit for a single worker retiring and government benefits to inflation Security payments will climb by 11.2 level, after revision.
    [Show full text]